Do you support the DLC?

Just wanted to gague how many of you DUers support the DLC?

how about a third option.

Can we get back to focusing on something important, like DSM or Plame or something?

IS a serious issue.

We have the unions breaking up and leading who don't give a flying fuck and that does matter - to a lot of people.

It's interesting how folks will put an "ist" at the end of something they're not fond of. Makes it sound so much nastier.

I'm looking for positive action. This is not it.

Don't y'all have a candidate to work for or something?

working for the corporations and against American workers - against the environment - against privacy rights - that sort of thing?

would you be talking about?

or who support the war in Iraq that's supposed to keep us free from terror or who voted FOR any number of other republican-sponsored bills that benefit big business and give the shaft to American workers?

Feinstein, Lieberman, Biden, Clinton..............there are more but I have to look them up.

even though he voted for the Bankruptcy bill.

We're kinda selective like that.

trading away my democracy. Period. I've heard some going on about Byrd but I haven't -- at least not while in my right mind.

Boxer is my kind of democrat. Any of the CBC, my kind of democrat. Howard Dean, my kind of democrat.

the one that some said made them fear what Kerry was doing in that regard. But, oddly, not fear what Boxer was doing, even though it was the same thing at that moment that Kerry was doing.

We're quite selective.

'ists! 'ists! I want to coin a new term: ist-ists! I'm sick of it, too! Even worse: 'ista. Why not just say "corporatista."

"Senor, thee corporatee-stas are attack-eeng thee compound!"

It sort of reminds me of freepers prattling about "Clintonistas."

:eyes:

because it is the DLC which is voting against those important issues whenever they are brought up. Voting against a timetable for exit strategy and in favor of 'strong defense.' Voting for the patriot act. Voting against investigations that you are asking about...

The DLC is the neo-con, corporate wing of the Dem party. They need to be thrown out before change can occur. And right now, they need to be called out for what they are.

This is a parallel strategy. Call out the DLC and ask for investigations at the same time. It is the best way to pressure the DLC into agreeing with the need for investigations. It is the best way to make them change. Show the Dem party voters that the DLC is voting just like the Republicans.

:)

... in both Mr.'s From and Lieberman own words.

America has 2 right-wings.
There is no center or left in the DLC.

Seriously, if you are going to deliberately misrepresent the truth, then I'm free to take liberties as well. Of course, my statement is closer to the mark that yours :-)

You are still young enough to go and fight the war that you so strongly support.

When you get to Iraq, rest assured that the rest of us liberals that you view with such contempt, will be busting our collective asses to end this war and to get you back home alive and safe.

Thought out... taking a look at all angles... I like that. :)

Go to their web site, and read the essays on the War on Terror. These people support a war that has been fought for the most bogus of reasons. How many American soldiers are dead in that conflict? 1700? What ever the number, it is going to get bigger.
Economic issues and arguing over affirmative action can nuanced, but how does one nuance a newly minted gold star mother?
I have a hatred for the DLC greater than my dislike for repukes. They are despicable, unspeakable, grotesque caricatures of Democrats.

and for all of me they should just go repug and stop the charade. 'cept that would end the game they're playing, pretending to be dems and pulling the dems to the right, while the repugs go still further right. meanwhile more facsism shoved down all our throats. screw them!

Think we're passionate about this or what? (Looking at our comments lined up within 2 minutes of each other -- damn! I thought I was going to be first!)

like our Repuke fellow countrymen. As long as the DLC are anti-conservative, anti-Republican, and anti-Military/Industrial Complex, I can cohabit with them. After all, isn't Bill Clinton a DLC'er? He turned out OK, I think. I think a little coalition-building may be in order here....

And even though they try toclaim him so theycan point to ONE SUCCESS in over 20 years, they are still pissed at him.



Now Hillary is a much more puristDLCer.

BTW: The DLC IS:
* Conservative (Business profits before Labor)

*Joins WITH Republicans on most issues

*Is PRO-WAR MIC. They want to expand the Military.

It all depends on which DLC'er is being discussed...I don't see them as some monolith identity.

What I don't support are people who bitch constantly about Democrats.

there are no other sides to them except corporatism. everything else is "cover". the goals are identical. why else do you think the big dog is such buddies with the bushes? and I liked him as pres....monica or no. but I don't like the way he panders to the BFEE

A majority of this board is far to the left of DLC. And to some people on here, if you don't agree with them, you're obviously a Republican.

Stupid poll.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Look at the people, what they say and what they do. Very instructive and a lot truer than a label.

Winners make majorities. If the DLC can give us seats in the Red States, then more power to them.

:sarcasm:

:think:

electoral failure (we could have had a landslide against Bush, especially this last time 'round but they can't get a spine and speak the truth that Americans want and need to hear), not to mention the voting record of those who want us to support them?

's okay, you can choose that course if you like. but y'ought not pretend they've done anything for us in the past six years. and I tend to think that Clinton is an exception, not the basis for a rule.

...when she won't cast ONE vote against the neocon/corporatist agenda?

And that's just one example, but there are plenty of others. The Nelsons, for example. Biden & Lieberman, etc.

How are these really Democratic seats if they won't VOTE like Democrats?

:toast:

The people I have a problem with are those who would deliberately divide the anti-NeoCon vote in hopes of gaining some sort of dubious advantage for their narrow ideological agendas.

...is that DLC candidates are not the lesser evil.

I support the DLC in their right to say what they think is best for the party and the right to participate in our dialogs and discussions. You wanna vote Democratic? Fine by me. Cut a check and climb aboard, partner. In the long run it does us much more good to be perceived as an inclusive party that is tolerant of debate and diversity. More importantly, it does the country good for its political activists to uphold the principles of tolerance and diversity. I usually disagree with what they say, but not always. I always will defend their right to say it.

I'll leave demonizing Democrats to Karl Rove. I only require you to stand with us when the votes are being counted.

And I hate to see progressives declaring jihad on them.

They first did so in 1994 and have continued to do so ever since.

Oye.

"But the great myth of the current cycle is the misguided notion that the hopes and dreams of activists represent the heart and soul of the Democratic Party. Real Democrats are real people, not activist elites."

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?cp=1&kaid=127&subid=900056&contentid=251690

I'm supposed to be ok with people who call me and others who do the legwork for the Democratic party "activist elites"?

Why don't we just go on an activist strike and show these DLCers how important we really are?

See if the "regular people" will get off their asses and work.

The Republicans are more successful because they don't openly attack their base, in fact they treat them like kings and queens.

maybe that's what they mean.

i understand not everyone has time to get involved actively in politics.

The DLC apparently does not appreciate the time and effort the activists donate to the cause, and they do not comprehend the importance of that effort as well.

I have been a paid staffer on a camapaign, and I understand the value of volunteers very well.

I would never be so stupid as to insult them or say they are less than "regular folks".

regarding their right to put forth their opinions. As far as standing with us when the votes are being counted, I also agree but the DLC, it seemed to me, encouraged us to 'move on', and forget about counting the votes. The votes are still being counted, but not by the DLC.

So, while I have read and listened to their POV, I disagree with, what seems to me, to be a constant 'let's get along with Republicans' rather than 'let's see what the base of the party, working Americans have to gain by 'getting along with Republicans'. Shouldn't they be more concerned about what we think, that Republicans?

I do not support the War in Iraq, they do and many of their candidates voted away Congress' right to declare war in the Fall of 2002.

Throughout the election, many of us who opposed the war, were pretty much silenced on that issue and had no candidate speaking forcfully for us. But we 'went along' rather than risk another four years of this administration. That didn't work. There's an old saying that repeating the same actions hoping for a different result, doesn't work, or words to that effect.

I disagree with them on the Patriot Act, on the War, on just about everything and as said, we got zero support from them on 'counting every vote'. So, tell me again, why should I support them, Lieberman, Clinton et al? I'm willing to listen, but very skeptically due to past experience, and three lost elections.

Note: I did not write this.

^^^^^^^^^^^

When Centrism Works and When It Does Not"

I have been following the pro-DLC/anti-DLC debate with great interest and I think there are valid arguments from both sides. However, I notice that pro-DLC folk believe that centrism can become a permanent message that will work in all kinds of political climates. As we saw last fall, Centrism does not work in a political climate where the GOP moves to an extreme, while the Dems try to mimic the GOP.

When Bill Clinton came to power in 1993, it was only after the Cold War had ended and after twenty-years of Republican fiscal mismanagement. These two conditions largely explain Clinton's victory. Those conditions do not exist right now, so you cannot say "The DLC led Clinton to victory in the 1990s, it can do it now." And let's face it, the reason Bill Clinton won was because of Bill Clinton, who was a brilliant communicator. It had little to do with the DLC.

Now moving to the present. We are now in 2005, in the middle of a war in Iraq that doesn't really correspond to the initial aim of the Global War on Terror and a general climate of fear and irrationalism is pervasive among the American public. Rather than developing their own message on foreign policy and national security, the DLC completely (let me emphasize, COMPLETELY) adopted the Republican platform which is heavily rooted in the bankrupt ideology of neoconservatism. The DLC chose not to differentiate itself from the Republicans, and as a result, they have no room to criticize the GOP's foreign policy shortcomings and are permanently wed to failed policies.

For what it's worth there are one or two areas where I agree with the DLC, and that is on financial-economic issues. I agree with Bill Clinton's curbing of welfare as well as his balance budget schemes. But where I agree with the DLC is completely overshadowed by the arrogance of the DLC. For example, the unwillingness to work with Howard Dean, the DNC chair. We may not agree with everything that Dean says, but I would just like to see the DLC compliment him when he does do good things just once, such as raising $86 million for the DNC in just 6 months (that's five times the amount of the previous year).

The DLC needs to realize that centrism is useless if their opponents are bent on propagating extreme right-wing beliefs. I understand the importance of reaching out to moderates on the other side, but a Dem's responsibility is first and foremost to their base of supporters, then to independents/moderates, and finally to the other side. Because you cannot count on the other side to seal the election for you. When faced with the option of Republican-Lite and Republican, most conservative voters opt for the latter. Their attitude is why vote for less when I can get more.

In the end, my dear DLCers, the American people are looking for leadership, someone who is confident and doesn't base their policy decisions on which direction the wind is blowing. They are looking for someone who can communicate and someone who doesn't abandon their own judgement to parrot GOP talking points. If you cannot offer an alternative to things like neoconservatism and extreme social conservatism, then there is no reason for any Democrat, let alone moderate Republican to vote for you.

I hope y'all take this into consideration and spend the next four years devising a platform that can be marketed, in a cooperative relationship with the DNC.

Yours truly,
XXXXXXXXX

Thank you very much for sharing!

The person who wrote this is not registered at DU, but has been following the conversation. I really think that plenty of Dems. have not thought about this ideological split in the party before now.

I guess we got someone thinking.

And the only way to deal with a malignancy is to CUT IT OUT.

You don't compromise with cancer. You don't call a truce with it. You GET RID OF IT, or you DIE.

And this party's been terminal since December 12, 2000. Yet some of you refuse to see the reality.

The DLC, which is not even a part of the Democratic Party but a corporate/Republican-funded club, has been jeering, sneering and attacking real Democrats--"neo-left McGovernites" and other stupid shit--for so long, no other attitude toward us, for so long, that they are themselves the cause of all the dissention. If you want to blame someone for all the distress they cause, pay some attention to the only attitude they have ever shown toward mainstream, liberal Democrats.

There is all the world of difference between a good Democrat who wants the best for the non-corporate American people and society but who will occasionally disappoint you with conservative votes on things--Sen. Byrd, for example--and a DLC corporatist who does not even give a God-damn about the American people. I will never forget, years ago, hearing Bill Clinton giving a speech to a G-8 (think it was still G-7 then) conference, really great on what the middle-class fears, downsizing, loss of benefits, unions, etc.--then the prick stabs US all in the back with NAFTA, GATT, cuts to welfare, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 which allowed total monopoly domination, no raise to the minimum wage, etc., etc. Weakened all kinds of protections to workers and consumers, etc.--(Clinton even allowed tobacco corporations to weaken the warning against smoking, on cigarette packs). Fine with some people here, not with those of us who are middle class or poor, and who can't fight back against anything.

Now that we are really making some progress on getting rid of this plague and returning to two Parties, they really step up the attacks. I never heard viciousness by "Democrats" against Democrats until the "D"LC came along--and we really started losing elections. It was Clinton's moral behavior that started the slide, and all the attackers had to do was use anti-Democratic "D"LC jargon to do so. Democrats will lose nothing to get rid of this group--except their snide attacks and refusal to help employees with their problems--because they were never an intrinsic part of the Party.

just kidding

And that's just what they are.

that will rid us of this greedy, power hungry, tyrannical administration. the DLC and the left wing of our party must unite, if not we can't win.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

DLC is nothing but a gang of stealth moderate Republicans who've infiltrated the Democratic Party to destroy it from within.

One of the reasons why I am so contemptuous of the far-left fringe is that they willfully ignore historical fact. While everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they aren't entitled to facts. Yet DU'ers continue to make up their own version of history that bears no relationship to the truth. They blame the DLC for the loss of control of Congress based on little more than the fact that Bill Clinton, a DLC member, was elected president in 1992.

They conveniently igonore (ok, willfully disregard) the following facts:

1. Before the DLC even existed, the Democratic Party has lost four of the last five presidential elections, two of which were crushing landslide defeats.
2. Before the DLC even existed, the Democratic Party had lost control of the U.S. Senate.
3. Before the DLC even existed, the Democratic Party had lost its grip on the South, which had once been a realiable source of dozens of electoral votes and dozens of seats in Congress.
4. Before the DLC even existed, the Republican Party had been closing the gap in terms of voter registration and representation at the state legislature level.
5. The seats that changed hands in the 1994 election were primarily those where voters had already been voting Republican for president.

The DU'ers argue that the Democrats lost control of Congress because liberal voters grew disenchanted with the moderate policies of the DLC and Bill Clinton. The truth is that Democrats lost control of Congress because voters who had been voting Republican for president for years finally started voting Republican for Congress. It boggles the mind that anyone would think that the reason Democrats lost seats throughout the South and rural West, and in turn lost control of Congress, because they just weren't liberal enough. Yet that is precisely what the DU'ers argue.

I was a centrist who originally supported the DLC. But I came to the conclusion that there is a fundamental flaw to their strategy.

DLC: We cannot implement our agenda without first winning elections.

Imagine a situation where control of Congress and the Presidency switches every eight years between Republicans and DLC Democrats.

2008 - DLC takes control and maintains the status quo
2016 - REP takes control and moves the country backwards
2024 - DLC takes control and maintains the status quo
2032 - REP takes control and moves the country backwards

Ad nauseum.

See the flaw?

DU: We cannot implement our agenda even after winning elections if our agenda does not have the support of the American people.

Over the past quarter century I have moved from the Right through Center and to the Left. During that quarter century I changed my opinion on the death penalty (when DNA evidence proved that over 50% of death row inmates in Illinois were innocent of their crimes). That's it. I haven't budged an inch on any other issue during that time. The Center has simply moved that far to the Right. And it did not move that far to the Right on its own. It moved that way because Republicans have spent the last 25 years framing the issues while the DLC came up with the devastatingly blistering retort, "me too".

:thumbsup:

They're creating more problem for true Liberal value! This is my take on the issue.

But I think they have a right to live, fer crissake.

They have a right to live in the big tent.

We are never all going to agree on everything. That's why we're Democrats and not Republicans.

I tend to consider myself a centrist. Socially, I'm very liberal. When it comes to economic concerns, I'll take any idea that's good. Republican, Democrat, Right, Left, whichever. Any idea that I think will benefit American workers I'll consider in good faith. On foreign policy, I probably moved right after Sept. 11th, but I believe in accountability which seems to be grossly lacking in the current administration.

One of the (many) things I find distasteful about the Republican party is how, in the past 25 years, the party apparatus and base have become little more than leaping monkeys screaming "I'm more ideologically pure than thou!" Talking to many decent, thoughtful conservatives, one of the most frequent complaints I hear is how the party no longer seems to have room for Goldwater and Rockefeller Republicans, true right of center moderates in the modern political sense. As a result, the party has become far more extreme than it used to be, politics have become more partisan and polarized, and the country suffers from a drought of good, sensible ideas that appeal to a broad spectrum of citizens.

Seeing these DLC vs Liberal debates, I'm reminded of those developments in the Republican party. If I find the enabled extremism in the Republican party distasteful, why on earth would I want to see the Democratic party take a similar route? All it's going to do is alienate the center.

And for those who say the center doesn't matter - the base does - all I need point out is that Republicans have a far bigger base than the Democrats. The Democratic party, almost by definition, is coalitional. There has to be moderation and compromise to pull all the disparate interests together into a unified, effective whole. The Republicans can get away with playing up to an evangelical base and corporate interests. That's sufficient for them to win elections. The Democrats have wide intra-party conflicts that need bridging.

One example. Labor unions and gay marriage. The Democratic party needs to return to its labor roots and fight on behalf of your average working class Joe. On the other hand, your average working class Joe isn't overtly fond of something like gay marriage. Even in blue states, there is a very delineated strain of social conservatism at work among the poor and working classes. How do you resolve this? I'm not sure. But it is the reason we had Kerry trying to straddle issues, because he knew "Say this, I alienate base group A. Say that, I alienate base group B." Any wrong word, and he could slice a nice chunk off his base, which is devastating in a close election.

I think the problem is identity politics. Instead of having individual minority groups or various ideological groups or various interest groups, the party must craft a Democratic identity, something unifying that many different people can agree upon and find attractive. The closest things we've had to that is "Well, we all hate Bush." But that just isn't enough. Not by a long, long way.

This internal Inquisition to ferret out "republican" traitors does the exact opposite of this. It fractures the party, it reduces everyone to their pet interests, and it breeds a strain of intolerance worthy of the most hard-core right-wing partisans.

For those who say DLCers are no better than Republicans, ask yourself this: If a DLCer was president, would we be in Iraq today? If a DLCer was president, would we have the Patriot Act we have? If a DLCer was president, would the current SCOTUS nominee be someone like John Roberts?

No, no, and no. No difference? It's a world of difference! It a difference in lives.

But hey, what do I know. I'm just a Republican mole sent here to disrupt and destroy the Democratic party. *shifty eyes*

Ya might want to research what the DLC lays down for -

IWR check, A HUGE DLC sell out
CAFTA - DLC sell outs, check
Bankruptcy bill - DLC sellout, check
Patriot Act - check - see the new versions DLC supporters...
SCOTUS - John Roberts - DLC praises so far - check...

:rofl:

btw, welcome to DU, thanks for the laugh!

What someone will go along with in Congress for political purposes isn't necessarily what they would do as president.

Members of Congress tend to be mealy-mouthed, "which way is the wind blowing," nearly sychophantic invertebraes. Remember, someone like Hillary is saying "I want to be president, and I will say and do what I need to position myself just so for the sake of electoral politics."

The presidency is different. It tends to come with a certain stature and a certain entitlement to do what one really wants to do, rather than what one thinks he/she has to do to sail the electoral winds.

Just look at Bush. "Compassionate conservative, he's not really right-wing, but right of center, blah blah blah."

And then he got into office. We know how that one turned out.

A psych staple and much believed in hiring an executive of ANY entity.

You can say that the DLC largely behaved like a doormat on some of these issues, but can't say with any good reason that a DLC president or a Democratically-controlled Congress would have ever had initiated them.

the republican leader, DLC!

Woulda, coulda, shoulda only matters in horsehoes. My view is based on what really happened and who was an accessory to all of the travesties. DLC present and accounted for! Let the record show....

your average working class Joe isn't overtly fond of something like gay marriage.

"your average working class" includes GAY PEOPLE! It is unfortunate that the elitists in the DLC view us working class type as all alike. We are not beer guzzling, black hating, gay bashing, un-bathed, American version of the Roman mob! Most working class men and women could care less about the social wedge issues that Republicans, and their DLC fellow travelers, obsess about all the time.

For those who say DLCers are no better than Republicans

They are worse than Republicans, for the DLC pretends to be on the side of working men and women, all the while subverting their interests by supporting anti-labor treaties such as NAFTA and CAFTA.

Jesus warned about the DLC types when he spoke about wolves clothed as sheep.

How hard would it be to say that what two people, who have nothing to do with you, do is not as important as having access to healthcare? How difficult would it be to point out there is nothing more supportive of a family than financial stability? If that were pointed out, repeatedly, and forcefully, it would resonate. Not with everyone, of course. There are some people you can't get. But it would resonate with working people all over the country.

But you can't do it, can't use those arguments if you have no clear policies to back them up. If your view of the problems that have arisen due to globalizations are mainly that Americans don't have sufficient skills or that things will work themselves out in time, you can't make that argument. Telling them that they need to retrain when they know perfectly well that the training period will break them financially and at the end, the best they can hope for is an entry level position after all their years in the workforce is not addressing the problems that have arisen.


If your answer to outsourcing is a futile effort to get quid pro quo from the countries who are currently benefiting the most from it, you aren't going to get votes on that. People want clarity. They want to know what you'll do. They don't want to sign onto a business plan that might or might not work out for them.

No one believes that any politician can recreate the conditions that led to the prosperity we enjoyed under Clinton. If the DLC thinks it can, it better find a way to spell that out very clearly.

You can't sell a healthcare when you can't tell people how much it will cost their families. Most of us have access to insurance. It's access to the money it costs that's a problem.

Just try offering something concrete and well thought out and you might put personal ideology back where it belongs, which is in peoples' personal lives. Either way, if people want to vote based on extreme fundamentalist religious beliefs, they're not voting Democrat. You can't get them all.

"How hard would it be to say that what two people, who have nothing to do with you, do is not as important as having access to healthcare? How difficult would it be to point out there is nothing more supportive of a family than financial stability? If that were pointed out, repeatedly, and forcefully, it would resonate. Not with everyone, of course. There are some people you can't get. But it would resonate with working people all over the country.

But you can't do it, can't use those arguments if you have no clear policies to back them up."

I couldn't have said it better than that...:thumbsup:

Your post makes sense. The REAL moles are the ones trying to get people to stop supporting the party.

...I think Al From has fucked it up for us somewhat.

This essay by James Kroeger sums it up pretty well:

"I have never had any problems with Hillary Clinton. Indeed, I defend her from Republican attacks regularly. But this apparent connection to the DLC is something I find very disturbing. Let me just go ahead and spell out my problem with the DLC."

"I have tended to agree with those who have suggested that the Democratic Party was actually hurt more---in the long run---by Bill Clinton’s Presidency than it was helped by it. The evidence is plentiful. Under the guidance and direction of the DLC, the Democratic Party has now lost control of not just the federal government, but also most state & local governments. No, the DLC has not been dictating all of the actions of every Democrat, but they do wield so much influence (especially with $$) within the party, they have been able to successfully “moderate” the political message that the Democratic Party has wrapped its identity around. Unfortunately, the only success of any significance that the DLC can point to over the past dozen years was Bill Clinton’s election and re-election. In the end, Bill Clinton’s Presidency was actually a personal achievement, not an achievement of the Democratic Party."

"Unfortunately, Bill Clinton and his cohort at the DLC are profoundly mistaken in their belief that Clinton’s success was due to his “centrist” positions on the issues. Democrats who tried to run on Clinton’s centrist agenda were regularly swept away by Republican candidates throughout the Clinton Era. The only reason why his centrist positions helped to get him elected is because he was able to deftly take away the ammunition his opponents were depending on to define him in a negative way. By eliminating distinctions between himself and his Republican opponent, he was able to reduce the choice for voters to “Who do you want for your President? Him or me?” With his charm, he was the obvious choice for many. As many have pointed out, the only problem with this approach is that you can only agree with your opponent for tactical reasons so many times before you actually become your opponent."

"Bill Clinton is a great, great guy. How can anyone not like him? His charm reminds me of the 1980’s, when I would listen to one of Reagan’s State of the Union speeches and say, “You know, he even makes me want to believe what he’s saying, and I know that everything he just said is 100% wrong.” The comparison to Reagan is apt. I predict that one day historians will agree that Bill Clinton was truly a far greater Political Personality than Ronald Reagan ever was. He was/is every bit the equal of Ronald Reagan when it comes to personal charm, and that is saying a lot. But Bill Clinton was/is also extremely intelligent—in a book-learning sort of way—while Reagan regularly turned to The Reader’s Digest for incisive analysis of the issues. There is no doubt in my mind that Bill Clinton would have easily trounced Ronald Reagan if they had been matched up against each other at the same time. Charming & Intelligent vs. Charming & Amiable Dunce."

"My impression of Senator Hillary Clinton thus far is that she does not posses the kind of extraordinary gifts of personal charm that her husband possesses. We may not see another politician with Bill’s extraordinary gifts for several generations. Without the extraordinary charisma that her husband possesses, I don’t think she would have any chance to prevail against the Republican onslaught when it comes. In the absence of extraordinary charm, a Democratic politician can only win against The Republican Nemesis with passion and palpable conviction. That’s not something I see in Senator Clinton. Nothing would please me more than to see her blossom into a passionate advocate of economic justice, but I’m not holding my breath (because of the connection to the DLC)."

"Right now, I see the DLC as a third political party that is trying to take over the apparatus of the Traditional Democratic Party. I do not think they are evil, but I do believe they are misguided. I maintain a very vague hope that they will one day wake up to the realities that most Traditional Democrats can see clearly. I still lament the lost opportunity that I believe Democrats had during the Clinton Era, but did not exploit. I’m convinced that with his special gifts, Bill Clinton could have re-popularized traditional Democratic values, in much the same way that Ronald Reagan was able to sell Swing Voters on a conservative agenda that actually offered nothing to Average Americans. Unfortunately, his political instincts led him to embrace short-term tactical victories over long-term success. He could still do it for us today, but I fear that it may now be far too important to him to defend the “centrism” that he wrapped his identity around for so many years, in the mistaken belief that being “consistent” is more important than being right."

"Too bad for us."

They'e making a lot of fuss and bother right now, kind of like some annoying kid at the swimming pool splashing and screaming "Mommy! Look at me!". But they're no longer running the party, and the grassroots have been reinvigorated. Politically, they're dead men walking.

They are either too far to the right to truly represent the broad scope of a heterogeneous society, or they're idiots who think that the hate-filled forces of extreme privilege can be mollified by a little "cooperation".

I'm a left-liberal, but hardly a radical; it's just mind-numbing to think of sucking up to massa and thinking he's going to give you a break.

Because we need the seats, it would be foolhardy in the extreme to oppose or undermine the candidacy of any alleged DINO Democrat. With a couple of notable exceptions:

1) The benefits of having a non-Democrat like Bernie Sanders (Independent) outweigh the benefit of having an extra Democrat in the House. However, it's OK to support a non-Democrat like Sanders if they're running for office in a maverick, non-partisan state like Vermont. If a Sanders-type were to run in any state other than a Vermont or New Hampshire, they would always lose, no matter how good he/she is.

2) In the extremely rare and almost unheard-of case where the Republican candidate is more liberal and practical than the DINO candidate. So, if Zell Miller were somehow running against say, Susan Collins for a Senate seat, it might be permissable to vote for Collins. But that kind of situation has about a 0.001% chance of ever occuring.

3) I would urge Democrats to groom suitable replacement Dems for Senators like Biden and Feinstein. Good Democrats could win in states like Delaware and California. And I would ignore any calls to replace someone like Ben Nelson in Nebraska, because you're not going in any way be able to find a more liberal Democrat who would be able to win
a Nebraska Senate seat.

In general, I don't support DLC positions on a lot of things. So, out of practicality, I would support DLC candidates, but I would oppose the DLC from having control over the Democratic agenda and Democratic campaigning.